1 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

Class  Book  Volume 

* - ’I  ^ ..  ^ 


Je  OG-IOM 


‘ ' t"  .c 

OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN.  ' 23 

— j 

FRIDAY,  AFTERNOON  SESSI^-f 

^a^fanuary  27,  1905. 

X 

The  State  and  Local  Boards  of  Healtlyrhet  at  1 150  P.  M.  and  were 
called  to  order  by  Vice-President  Chapp:^^,  who  said : 

The  first  paper  for  this  afterg^On  is  “Sewage  Disposal”  by  Mr. 
George  A.  Johnson,  Engineer  ir^^arge,  Sewage  Testing  Station,  Colum- 
bus, Ohio. 

Mr.  George  A.  John^ft:  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen: 

I think  I ought  explain  first  of  all  that  since  a very  complete 
description  of  the  >gi^wage  testing  station  was  given  in  a recent  number 
of  the  Ohio  Sa|silary  Bulletin,  that  paper  having  been  prepared  by  the 
engineer  oL^  Ohio  State  Board  of  Health,  Mr.  Pratt,  perhaps  some 
informatipd  on  the  science  of  sewage  purification  in  general  may  be  of 
more especial  interest,  and  I have  therefore  prepared  a short  paper  on 
the '‘general  subject  of  sewage  disposal. 

SEWAGE  DISPOSAL. 


By  George  A.  Johnson, 

Engineer  in  Charge,  Sewage  Testing  Station,  Columbus,  Ohio. 


The  speaker  has  been  asked  to  say  a few  words  to  you  this  after- 
noon on  the  subject  of  sewage  disposal,  prior  to  your  visit  to  the  Sewage 
Testing  Station,  and  in  the  beginning  perhaps  a general  outline  of  the 
progress  which  is  being  made  in  this  line  of  municipal  work  may  be  of 
interest  to  you. 

The  statement  was  recently  made  by  Mr.  George  W.  Fuller  before 
the  International  Engineering  Congress,  that  of  the  urban  population 
of  the  United  States  in  1900,  amounting  to  about  28,000,000  people,  73 
per  cent,  discharge  their  sewage  into  inland  streams  or  lakes;  23  per 
cent,  into  the  sea  or  tidal  estuaries;  and  but  about  4 per  cent.,  or  a 
little  over  one  million  people,  are  tributary  to  sewage  purification  works. 

Regarding  the  standing  of  the  State  of  Ohio  in  this  line  of  work, 
it  may  be  said  that  while  Ohio  ranks  fifth  among  the  states  in  the 
amount  of  sewage  treated,  yet  of  the  two  and  one-third  millions  of 
people  constituting  the  urban  population  of  Ohio,  only  about  50,000  are 
tributary  to  sewage  purification  works.  In  a recent  report  to  the  State 
Board  of  Health  on  “Sewage  Purification  Plants  in  Ohio,”  by  R.  Win- 
throp  Pratt,  Engineer  to  the  Board,  it  is  stated  that  in  1903  there  were 
twenty-four  such  plants  in  actual  operation,  while  eighteen  more  were 
V either  under  construction,  or  being  planned.  Considering  that  eleven 

^ 15808 


24 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


years  ago  there  was  not  a sewage  purification  plant  in  operation  in  this 
state,  the  activity  which  has  been  shown  along  this  line  in  the  past  decade 
is  worthy  of  note. 

Of  the  24  sewage  purification  works  in  operation  in  Ohio  in  1903, 
12  were  designed  for  the  treatment  of  the  sewage  of  cities  and  towns, 
and  the  remaining  12  for  the  treatment  of  the  sewage  of  various  public 
and  private  institutions,  the  amount  of  sewage  treated  daily,  and  the 
population  tributary  to  these  works  being  divided  up  as  follows: 


Table  No.  I. 

Sewage  Purification  Works  in  Ohio. 


Number 

of 

Plants 

Estimated  Popu- 
lation Con- 
nected to 
Sewers 

Estimated 
Amount  of 
Sewage  Treated 
Daily. 
(Gallons.) 

Cities  and  towns 

12 

46,100 

8,300 

5,850,000 

833,000 

Institutions  

12 

Of  the  sewage  purification  works  now  in  operation  in  this  country 
over  80  per  cent,  have  been  built  within  the  past  dozen  years.  That  an 
idea  may  be  had  of  how  these  works  are  divided  up  among  the  different 
states  the  following  table  has  been  prepared  from  the  previously  mentioned 
statements  made  by  Mr.  Fuller. 


Table  No.  II. 

States  in  Which  Over  One  Million  Gallons  of  Sewage  are  Treated  Daily. 
(In  Communities  of  3,000  Inhabitants  or  Over.) 


Estimated  Popu- 

Estimated 

Number 

lation  Con- 

Amount of 

State. 

of 

nected  to 

Sewage  Treated 

Plants. 

Sewers  in 

Daily. 

1904. 

(Gallons.) 

Massachusetts  

17 

226,000 

23.200,000 

Rhode  Island  

4 

190.000 

21,000,000 

New  York  

9 

150,000 

15,700,000 

Connecticut  

5 

62,000 

7,800,000 

Ohio  

i 8 

40,000 

5,200,000 

riinois  

i 8 

35,000 

3.000,000 

Pennsylvania  

1 2 

30,000 

3.000,000 

New  Jersey  

1 6 

1 20.000 

2,800,000 

Wisconsin  

1 3 

1 24,000 

2,500,000 

California*  1 

' 0 1 

1 110.000 

7,800,000 

Utah*  

1 1 

! 22.000 

5,000,000 

* C'ih''ornia  and  Utah  are  p’a''ed  'act-  in  the  table  for  the  reason  that  this 
sp\va'>^e  f’pse  ?tn'es  is  largely  ii«ed  fo^-  '^•ation  purposes,  the  purification  of  the 
som^  '-.ein  "or  most  part  inpida ’In’  disposal  process. 


In  the  follov^  states  a-  ’ or'i  n there  a’'e  contained  one  or  more 
se'^'a'^e  r.tirifi''at  0*'  '”0’'ks  i '’F  oF  from  3,000  to  i5»ooo  people 

are  tribute rv.  and  in  whic*  a'  ' from  1 00,000  to  1,000.000  gallons 

of  s^w?"  '’r'’  tr  d'lil”:  Indiana  Indian  Territory,  Iowa, 


iVj.jL  ^ 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


25 


$ 

cP 


Kansas,  Kentucky,  Michigan,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Texas. 

Considering  that  the  city  of  Columbus  is  at  the  present  time  engaged 
upon  the  construction  of  a system  of  sewage  purification,  which  will 
probably  be  completed  within  the  next  two  years,  Ohio  will  soon  take 
a much  more  prominent  place  among  the  states  in  regard  to  sewage 
purification,  as  when  the  Columbus  plant  goes  into  service  the  percentage 
of  the  urban  population  tributary  to  purification  works  in  Ohio  will  be 
increased  from  about  2 per  cent,  to  about  9 per  cent. 


REASONS  FOR  SEWAGE  PURIFICATION. 

Chief  among  the  many  considerations  involving  the  necessity  for 
the  purification  of  sewage  before  it  is  discharged  into  other  bodies  of 
water  are,  first,  the  sanitary  reasons,  and,  second,  the  aesthetic  reasons. 

The  sanitary  importance  of  the  question  has  long  been  recognized 
by  sanitarians,  and  the  indiscriminate  discharge  of  crude  wastes  into 
public  waterways  is  receiving  much  attention  with  the  view  to  the  pas- 
sage of  laws  prohibiting  this  questionable  procedure.  The  efforts  of  the 
Ohio  State  Board  of  Health  in  this  direction  have  been  noteworthy,  and 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1893  gave  it  considerable  power  towards  pre- 
venting the  pollution  of  public  water  supplies,  by  giving  it  control  over 
proposed  plans  for  sewerage  and  water  supplies.  The  Board  would 
obtain  more  complete  and  satisfactory  control  over  the  pollution  of  the 
streams  in  the  state  were  it  given  the  further  power  to  regulate  the  dis- 
charge of  sewage  from  outlets  which  existed  previous  to  1893. 

In  this  country  where  the  large  centers  ot  population  are  much 
more  widely  scattered  than  in  some  foreign  countries,  it  is  perhaps  not 
so  strange  that  it  has  become  the  custom  to  lead  the  sewage  of  cities  and 
towns  to  the  nearest  waterway,  into  which  it  is  discharged  in  its  crude 
state.  Where  the  dilution  offered  by  the  body  of  water  into  which  the 
sewage  is  discharged  is  sufficiently  great,  the  aesthetic  senses  of  the 
community  are  not  shocked  by  the  odors  of  putrefaction,  which  is  sure 
to  be  the  case  when  the  reverse  is  true.  There  still  remains  the  question, 
however,  of  whether  by  merely  diluting  the  sewage  with  a sufficient 
quantity  of  comparatively  pure  water  to  prevent  the  production  of  obnox- 
ious odors,  all  danger  is  removed  from  bacterial  infection  on  the  part 
of  the  citizens  of  communities  situated  further  down  stream  who  are 
obliged  to  take  this  more  or  less  polluted  water  for  the’r  drinking  supply. 
It  would  appear  that  the  effect  of  polluted  water  supplies  on  the  public 
health  is  quite  clearly  shown  by  the  deplorable  epidemics  of  tvphoid  fever, 
which  are  growing  in  frequency  with  time,  and  also,  it  may  be  added, 
with  the  increasing  volume  of  untreated  wastes  which  are  being  dis- 
charged into  public  waterways. 

In  1901,  Dr.  J.  L.  Leal,  in  his  admirable  review  of  “The  Legal 
Aspects  of  Water  Pollution,”  divided  the  states  and  territories  into  five 
classes,  explaining  that  “This  classification  shows  not  only  the  tenor  of,  and 
the  chief  object  sought  by  the  statute  laws  of  each  class,  but  also  p’-e- 
sents  an  orderly  sequence  in  the  development  of  the  whole  matter  of  the 
legal  prevention  of  water  pollution  from  the  point  of  time.” 


26 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


Describing  the  character  of  the  legislation  adopted  by  the  states  in 
the  five  classes  into  which  they  are  divided,  Dr.  Leal  states  that  in  Class 
I are  included  those  states  in  which  the  statute  law  goes  no  further  than 
to  forbid  the  “poisoning”  of  wells,  springs  and  reservoirs.  In  Class  II 
are  contained  those  states  and  territories,  the  laws  of  which  seek  to  pre- 
vent the  pollution  of  water  in  certain  ways.  Class  III  includes  those 
states  where  the  chief  aim  of  the  legislature  seems  to  be  the  protection 
of  certain  water  supplies.  To  Class  IV  belong  those  states  and  terri- 
tories where  the  statute  laws  forbid  the  pollution  of  all  waters  used  for 
water  supply.  In  Class  V,  representing  the  most  advanced  legislation 
in  this  respect,  are  contained  those  states  and  territories  which  have 
sought  by  law  to  protect  all  waters  within  their  boundaries. 

Dr.  Leahs  classification  of  the  states  is  as  follows: 

Class  I.  Georgia  and  Rhode  Island. 

Class  11.  California,  Idaho,  Indiana,  Oklahoma,  Vermont  and  Wis- 
consin. 

Class  III.  The  District  of  Columbia  and  Michigan. 

Class  IV.  Alabama,  Alaska,  Arizona,  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Flor- 
ida, Kansas,  Maine,  Minnesota,  Mississippi,  Montana,  New  Hampshire, 
New  York,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  and  Wyoming. 

Class  V.  Colorado,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Kentucky,  Maryland,  Massachu- 
setts, Missouri,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Jersey,  New  Mexico,  North 
Carolina,  North  Dakota,  Ohio,  South  Dakota,  Tennessee,  Utah,  Wash- 
ington, and  West  Virginia. 

Descriptive  of  the  legislative  conditions  obtaining  in  the  states  in- 
cluded in  Classes  IV  and  V,  Dr.  Leal  further  states : “The  various  laws 
differ  widely  in  the  different  states,  but  their  prevading  spirit  is  the  pro- 
tection of  water  used  for  potable  purposes.  Many  of  these  laws  show 
plainly  the  changes  in  scientific  opinion  within  comparatively  few  years. 
Some  of  the  first  of  them  forbid  the  pollution  of  potable  waters,  but  made 
exception  in  the  case  of  the  discharge  into  them  of  the  sewage  of  cities 
and  towns,  and  the  waste  matters  of  certain  industries.  Then  a little 
later  will  appear  a law  in  the  same  or  some  other  state  forbidding  such 
discharge  within  three  or  more  miles  of  the  intake  of  a water  supply.” 

“In  many  of  the  states  is  has  been  necessary  to  exempt  from  the 
provisions  of  the  law  certain  waters  practically  used  as  a means  of  sewage 
disposal  by  cities  and  towns  too  ignorant,  or  too  selfish,  to  be  willing  to 
allow  their  opportunities  for  the  commission  of  such  hygienic  sin  to  be 
curtailed,  or  in  connection  with  which  certain  influential  interests  are 
involved.  The  tendency  is  for  these  exceptions  to  grow  fewer,  however, 
and  it  seems  reasonable  to  expert  from  the  present  outlook  that  it  is  only 
a question  of  a short  time  when  the  pollution  of  all  inland  waters  must 
cease.” 

Quite  recently  Mr.  E.  B.  Goodell  has  reviewed  the  same  subject, 
and  has  adopted  a somewhat  more  condensed  classification,  grouping  the 
various  states  and  territories  according  to  the  progress  which  they  have 
made  in  this  direction.  In  his  grouping  he  divides  the  states  into  three 
classes,  namely: 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


27 


Class  1.  States  with  partial  restrictions. 

Class  II.  States  with  general  restrictions. 

Class  III.  States  with  severe  restrictions. 

Mr.  Goodell’s  Classification  is  as  follows: 

Class  /.  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Delaware,  Florida,  Georgia,  Idaho, 
Iowa,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Mississippi,  Nebraska,  North 
Dakota,  Oklahoma,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island  and  Wisconsin. 

Class  11.  California,  Colorado,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Maine,  Maryland, 
Missouri,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  North  Carolina,  Ohio,  Oregon,  South 
Dakota,  Tennessee,  Texas,  Utah,  Virginia,  Washington,  West  Virginia 
and  Wyoming. 

Class  III.  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  Minnesota,  New  Hamp- 
shire, New  Jersey,  New  York  and  Vermont. 

METHODS  OF  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL. 

Decisions  regarding  the  method  most  applicable  to  the  disposal, of 
a given  sewage  depend  very  largely  upon  local  conditions.  If  the  flow 
of  the  stream  into  which  the  sewage  is  discharged  is  too  small  to  per- 
mit of  disposal  by  dilution,  nuisances  incidental  to  the  discharge  of  raw 
sewage  into  streams  under  such  conditions  may  be  frequently  avoided 
by  recourse  to  a process  aiming  particularly  at  the  removal  of  a sub- 
stantial percentage  of  the  suspended  matters.  Where  other  communities, 
situated  a comparatively  short  distance  below,  take  water  for  drinking  pur- 
poses from  the  same  stream,  more  careful  and  complete  purification  of 
the  sewage  is  demanded  for  sanitary  reasons. 

In  deciding  upon  a method  for  the  purification  of  a sewage  there 
must  be  considered  not  only  the  individuality  of  the  sewage  itself,  but 
the  geological  conditions  existing  in  the  locality  in  question.  This  latter 
consideration  has  to  do  with  factors  of  cost  of  construction  which  can- 
not be  ignored.  In  sections  of  the  country  where  the  glacial  drift  forma- 
tion is  absent,  the  soil  is  usually  of  a clayey  nature,  and  to  a greater  or 
less  extent  impervious  to  water.  Obviously  such  soil  is  very  poorly 
adapted  to  filtration  purposes.  If  suitable  soil  is  not  a natural  product 
of  a section  of  the  country  where  purification  of  the  sewage  is  to  be 
undertaken,  it  follows  that  either  such  material  must  be  obtained  from  a 
distance,  thereby  adding  materially  to  the  first  cost  of  the  plant,  or  one  of 
the  more  recently  devised  treatments  adopted. 

These  later  developments  in  the  art  of  sewage  purification  may 
include  either  very  complete  preparation  of  the  sewage  prior  to  its  appli- 
cation to  fine-grain  beds,  or  else  some  of  the  more  modern  methods  of 
treatment  may  be  adopted,  in  which  coarse-grain  beds  are  made  use  of 
for  the  finishing  devices.  By  thoroughly  preparing  the  raw  sewage, 
prior  to  its  application  to  fine-grain  beds,  it  has  been  found  possible  to 
maintain  materially  higher  rates  of  treatment.  The  reduction  in  filter 
area  thus  effected  offsets  in  an  appreciable  manner  the  comparatively 
high  cost  of  fine-grain  material.  In  coarse-grain  beds  much  higher  rates 
of  treatment  are  employed  than  in  the  case  of  beds  composed  of  fine 
material,  and  consequently  less  material  is  required  for  their  construe- 


28 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


tion,  although  from  a standpoint  of  purification  higher  efficiencies  are 
naturally  to  be  expected  from  fine-grain  beds,  than  from  those  composed 
of  coarse  material. 


DISPOSAL  OF  SEWAGE  BY  DILUTION. 

The  question  of  the  degree  of  dilution  necessary  in  order  to  preclude 
the  production  of  obnoxious  odors  where  sewage  is  discharged  directly 
into  running  streams  of  water,  has  received  much  careful  consideration 
in  the  past.  Over  17  years  ago,  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering  found,  in  connec- 
tion with  such  studies  as  these,  that  if  sewage  is  discharged  into  streams 
where  the  minimum  flow  is  less  than  about  2.5  cubic  feet  per  second 
per  1,000  persons,  an  offense  would  be  almost  sure  to  arise;  but  where 
the  flow  of  the  stream  is  greater  than  7 cubic  feet  per  second  per  1,000 
persons,  the  reverse  would  probably  obtain. 

More  recently  these  limits  have  been  quite  materially  reduced  by 
Mr.  X.  H.  Goodnough,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  State  Board  of  Health 
of  Massachusetts.  After  an  extended  study  of  the  question  in  connec- 
tion with  certain  small  rivers  in  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Goodnough  states: 
that  “Where  the  rate  of  dilution  is  less  than  3.5  cubic  feet  per  second 
'Objectionable  conditions  are  likely  to  result  from  the  discharge  of  sewage 
into  a stream ; while  in  cases  where  the  dilution  exceeds  6 cubic  feet  per 
second  per  1,000  persons,  objectionable  conditions  have  not  been  pro- 
duced.'’ The  figures  above  referred  to  roughly  correspond  to  the  follow- 
ing dilutions : 


Table  No.  III. 


Disposal  of  Sewage  by  Dilution. 


Investigator. 

Objectionable  Conditions 
Dilution  is  Less  Than 
Likely  to  Arise  When 

Esimated  Safe  Limit, 
Above  Which  Objec- 
tionable Conditions 
May  Not  Arise. 

Hering  

1 to  16 

1 to  45 

Goodnough  

1 to  23 

1 to  36 

It  is  recognized  that  these  conclusions  are  to  a greater  or  less  extent 
empirical,  and  that  they  are  not  strictlv  capable  of  general  application. 
It  is  further  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  Mr.  Hering’s  studies  applv  more 
particularly  to  large  waterways,  whereas  those  made  by  Mr.  Goodnough 
relate  to  conditions  obtaining  in  comparatively  small  streams,  in  which 
manufacturing  wastes  play  an  important  role. 

Aside  from  the  aesthetic  phase  of  the  question,  to  which  such  figures 
as  the  above  particularly  relate,  in  aiminp-  at  the  prevention  of  obnoxious 
odors,  and  the  unsightly  appearance  of  the  stream,  there  still  remains 
the  sanitary  phase  of  the  matter  particularly  relating  to  cases  where  sev- 
eral cities  are  located  comparatively  short  distances  apart  on  the  same 
stream,  into  which  the  sewage  of  the  several  cities  is  discharged  in  its 
crude  state,  and  from  which  they  obtain  their  several  water  supplies. 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


29 


While  the  flow  of  the  stream  may  be  ample  at  all  times  to  prevent 
the  production  of  obnoxious  odors,  there  still  remains  the  question  of 
whether  by  dilutin^q’  the  crude  wastes  with  a comparatively  large  volume 
of  water  all  danger  from  pathogenic  forms  of  bacterial  life  is  removed. 
Quite  obviously  this  depends  very  largely  upon  the  velocity  of  flow  of 
the  stream  in  question,  and  the  distance  between  the  cities.  The  ex- 
pressed opinions  of  leading  sanitarians  regarding  this  point  are  consider- 
ably at  variance  at  this  time,  and  it  appears  needless  for  the  speaker  to 
add  his  personal  views.  But  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  it  would  be  far 
better  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  unpurified  wastes  into  public  water- 
wavs,  than  to  speculate  on  the  possible  harm  which  might  accrue  from 
such  a manifestly  questionable  procedure. 

BROAD  IRRIGATION  AND  SEWAGE  FARMING. 

In  communities  where  land  is  available,  both  from  a standpoint  of 
suitability  and  cost,  broad  irrigation  and  sewage  farming  are  quite  exten- 
sively practiced.  This  form  of  treatment  consists  in  distributing  sewage 
over  extensive  areas  of  land,  which  is  rarely  ever  artificially  underdrained. 
If  the  soil  is  porous  the  sewage  percolates  downward  until  it  meets  an 
underlying  impervious  stratum  of  clay  or  rock,  to  appear  later  as  springs, 
or  as  feeders  of  other  bodies  of  water,  in  a greater  or  less  state  of  purifi- 
cation dependent  upon  the  volume  of  sewage  treated,  and  the  character 
of  the  soil  through  which  it  passes. 

In  America  this  form  of  sewage  treatment  is  confined  more  particu- 
larly to  the  extreme  western  sections,  where  the  rainfall  is  comparatively 
small.  There  the  sewage  is  essentially  used  for  irrigation  purposes  in 
the  majority  of  instances,  being  applied  to  orange  groves,  vegetable  farm 
land,  and  the  like. 

In  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  large  cities  in  this  country,  even 
where  the  soil  is  suitable,  this  form  of  sewage  treatment  is  considered 
as  being  practically  out  of  the  question,  as  the  large  areas  of  land  re- 
quired are  rarely  obtainable  at  a reasonable  cost.  It  has  been  estimated 
that  the  land  required  in  this  treatment  is  about  i acre  per  100  persons. 

While  the  number  of  cities  employing  broad  irrigation  or  sewage 
farming,  in  the  disposal  of  sewage  is  steadily  growing  less,  there  are 
still  a number  of  notable  examples  of  this  form  of  treatment  abroad, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned  Paris,  where  the  four  sewage  fa^ms 
have  a combined  area  of  about  13,300  acres;  Nottingham,  Eng.,  where 
the  total  area  of  the  farm  amounts  to  about  1,950  acres;  and  Berlin, 
where  the  area  of  the  sewage  farm  amounts  to  about  19,000  acres,  or 
over  30  square  miles. 

Regarding  the  practice  of  sewage  farming  abroad,  the  following 
figures  are  interesting  in  showing  the  population  served  per  acre,  and 
the  amount  of  sewage  treated  per  acre  daily  on  a number  of  sewage 
‘farms  and  irrigation  fields  in  England  and  Europe.  The  table  is  com- 
piled from  data  contained  in  a lecture  delivered  in  1903,  by  Mr.  J.  D. 
Watson,  engineer  to  the  Birmingham,  Rea  and  Tame  Drainage  Board, 
and  from  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Bureau  for  Water  Purification  and 
Sewage  Disposal  of  Berlin,  for  1904. 


30 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


Table  No.  IV. 


Sewage  Farming  in  England  and  Europe. 


City. 

Population 
Served  per  Acre. 

Volume  of  Sewage 
Treated  per  Acre  Daily. 
(U.  S.  Gallons.) 

Birmingham 

451 

16,500 

Chettenham  

165 

15,950 

Charlottenburg  

485 

13,500 

Bedford  

260 

13,300 

Nottingham  

461 

12,900 

Burton-on-Trent  

98 

12,900 

Preston  

225 

12,000 

Norwich  

358 

11,150 

Danzig  

285 

9,700 

Breslau  

190 

9,170 

Paris  

7,830 

Leicester  

m 

6,870 

Wolverhampton  

209 

6,660 

Berlin  

105 

4,250 

Oxford  

102 

3,720 

Wrexham  

83 

3,320 

Leamington  

82 

2,950  . 

INTERMITTENT  SAND  FILTRATION. 

In  1870  Dr.  Edward  Frankland  first  introduced  the  theory  of  the 
process  of  sewage  purification  which  later  developed  into  what  is  now 
known  as  intermittent  sand  filtration.  In  this  form  of  sewage  treatment 
beds  of  sandy  soil  are  laid  out,  and  usually  provided  with  underdrains. 
To  these  beds  sewage  is  intermittently  applied,  periods  of  rest  being 
allowed  so  that  air  may  enter  the  beds  between  each  application  of  sew- 
age. The  result  obtained  is  an  oxidation  of  the  organic  matters  con- 
tained in  the  sewage,  which  is  chiefly  brought  about  by  bacterial  action, 
maintained  by  the  frequent  periods  of  rest  which  are  allowed  for  aeration. 

As  to  the  areas  of  land  required  in  this  form  of  treatment  it  is  to 
be  said  that  this  depends  upon  the  character  of  the  sewage  to  be  treated, 
the  nature  of  the  filtering  material,  and  whether  or  not  the  raw  sewage 
undergoes  any  form  of  preparatory  treatment  before  it  is  applied  to  the 
beds.  In  New  England,  where  this  form  of  sewage  treatment  is  more 
generally  used  than  elsewhere  in  this  country,  on  account  of  the  avail- 
ability of  suitable  filtering  material,  experience  indicates  that  raw  sewage 
may  not  be  efficiently  and  economically  treated  on  intermittent  sand 
filters  at  rates  in  excess  of  about  100,000  gallons  per  acre  daily,  the  aver- 
age rate  being  considerably  lower  than  this  figure.  The  land  required 
under  these  conditions  would  approximate  i acre  per  1,000  persons. 

Where  the  raw  sewage  undergoes  some  of  the  numerous  forms  of 
preliminary  treatment,  aiming  at  the  removal  of  a substantial  percentage 
of  the  suspended  matter,  considerably  higher  rates  of  treatment  than  the 
above  have  been  found  to  be  possible.  Some  representative  results  in 
connection  with  this  type  of  sewage  purification  as  practiced  in  Massa- 
chusetts, are  shown  in  the  following  table,  which  has  been  prepared  from 
the  data  contained  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  State  Board  of  Health 
of  Massachusetts,  for  1903. 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


31 


Table  No.  V. 

Efficiency  of  Intermittent  Sand  Filtration  in  Massachusetts. 
(Analytical  Results  = Averages  1900-3,  inclusive.) 


City  or 
Town. 

Estimated  Popula- 
tion connected  to 
Sewers  at  end  of 
1903. 

Per  Acre  of 
Filt.  Surface. 

Character  of 
Filtering 
Material. 

Purification  Effected 
(by  Albumin ’d  Amm) 

Population 

Served. 

Gals. Sewage 

treated  daily 

Parts 

per 

Million 

Per  cent 

Removed. 

Sew. 

Eff. 

Andover 

3,600 

986 

34,200 

Med.  fine  sand... 

10.9 

.64 

94.1 

Brockton  . . . 

25,000 

1,164 

40,900 

Coarse  sand  .... 

14.2 

.14 

99.0 

Clinton  

10,000 

426 

33,400 

Coarse  sand  .... 

10.9 

.83 

92.3 

Framingham 

7,500 

377 

32,800^ 

Fine  sand  

11.3 

.23 

98.0 

Marborough 

10,000 

900 

98,200 

Med.  fine  sand... 

8.0 

.56 

93.0 

Natick  

4,000 

360 

51,000 

Med.  fine  sand... 

3.3 

.26 

92.0 

Spencer  

3,000 

323 

40,300 

Med.  coarse  sand 

5.6 

.16  ' 

”97.1 

Westb’r’ugh 

3,000 

750 

70,000 

Coarse  sand  .... 

5.8 

.78 

86.5 

THE  PREPARATORY  TREATMENT  OF  SEWAGE. 

In  order  to  satisfactorily  maintain  higher  rates  of  treatment  in  the 
finishing  processes  than  would  otherwise  be  possible,  it  has  been  found 
advisable  to  subject  the  raw  sewage  to  a preparatory  treatment  before 
it  is  applied  to  the  final  beds,  the  object  being  to  remove  a substantial 
percentage  of  the  suspended  matters  from  the  sewage,  and,  in  some  of 
the  forms  of  preparatory  treatment,  to  effect  also  a partial  resolution 
into  simpler  forms,  of  the  organic  compounds  contained  in  the  sewage. 

Among  the  best  known  forms  of  preparatory  treatment  may  be 
mentioned  sedimentation,  chemical  precipitation,  strainers  or  roughing 
filters,  and  the  septic  treatment.  In  the  first  three  of  these  treatments 
the  main  object  is  the  removal  of  suspended  matter,  i.  e.,  the  clarification 
of  the  sewage.  In  the  septic  treatment  three  objects  are  aimed  at,  namely, 
(a)  the  removal  of  suspended  matter  through  subsidence,  (b)  the  partial 
resolution  of  crude  organic  matters  into  simpler  compounds,  and  (c) 
the  disposal  of  a material  portion  of  the  sludge  deposited,  through  lique- 
faction brought  about  by  bacterial  action. 

Of  all  of  these  preparatory  processes  it  is  to  be  mentioned  in  pass- 
ing that  their  field  of  usefulness  is  quite  sharply  restricted  to  the  pre- 
paration of  the  sewage  so  that  it  may  be  efficiently  purified  by  subsidiary 
devices  at  materially  higher  rates  of  treatment  than  would  otherwise  be 
possible.  It  rarely  ever  happens  that  the  effluent  of  any  of  these  prepara- 
tory processes  is  sufficiently  well  purified  to  be  discharged  from  the 
works  without  further  treatment.  It  is  true  that  a very  substantial  re- 
moval of  the  organic  matters  in  the  sewage  is  obtained,  but  the  efflu- 
ents are  very  rarely  indeed  of  a stable  nature,  and  putrefy  on  standing. 

Where  merely  the  abatement  of  a nuisance  is  desired,  such  a nuisance 
being  due  to  putrefactive  odors  arising  from  the  stream  into  which  the 
crude  sewage  is  discharged,  such  forms  of  sewage  treatment  as  aim 
essentially  at  clarification,  and  therefore  only  a partial  purification  of  the 


32 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


sewage,  are  frequently  successful.  Thus  at  London,  England,  where 
some  240  million  gallons  of  sewage  are  treated  daily  with  lime  and  sul- 
phate of  iron  and  allowed  to  settle,  the  analyses  show  that  something 
over  400  tons  of  suspended  matters  are  removed  from  the  sewage  each 
day  in  this  manner.  The  settled,  or  chemically  precipitated  sewage  is 
discharged  below  the  city  into  the  river  Thames.  It  is  understood  that 
actual  nuisances  arising  from  the  production  of  offensive  odors  is  thus 
largely  eliminated,  although  the  effluent  as  it  is  discharged  has  been 
found  to  contain  about  100,000  coli-like  forms  of  bacteria  per  cubic 
centimeter,  and  during  periods  of  extreme  low  flow  in  the  river,  is  diluted 
to  the  extent  of  less  than  1.5  parts  of  river  water  to  i part  of  sewage 
effluent.  In  fact  the  average  dilution  of  the  sewage  effluent  is  said  to  be 
less  than  5 to  i. 


TREATMENT  OF  SEWAGE  IN  COARSE-GRAIN  BEDS. 

Where  suitable  fine,  porous  material  is  not  obtainable  at  a reasonable 
cost,  sewage  has  been  treated  with  success  in  coarse-grain  beds,  at  mater- 
ially higher  rates  than  are  possible  in  connection  with  intermittent  sand 
filters.  Among  the  more  successful  types  of  these  processes  may  be 
mentioned  the  contact  bed  and  sprinkling  filter.  In  both  of  these  pro- 
cesses the  beds  are  well  underdrained,  and  the  filtering  material  ordin- 
arily consists  of  from  about  3 to  6 feet  in  depth  of  broken  stone,  slag, 
clinker,  cinder  or  some  similar  material,  the  particles  ranging  in  size 
from  less  than  0.5  inch  to  3 and  4 inches. 

Contact  Beds.  In  the  contact  bed,  which  had  its  origin  in  England 
some  II  years  ago,  the  sewage  is  run  into  the  bed  until  it  is  full,  allowed 
to  stand  thus  for  a varying  period  of  time,  and  then  slowly  drawn  off, 
and  the  bed  allowed  to  rest  empty  for  a varying,  but  considerable  period 
of  time.  The  purification  which  takes  place  during  this  process  is  very 
considerable,  and  in  many  places  a uniformly  non-putrescible  effluent  is 
obtained.  Where  satisfactory  results  are  not  to  be  obtained  with  a 
single  contact  the  effluent  of  the  first  bed  is  allowed  to  flow  into  a second 
bed,  similarly  constructed,  thereby  constituting  what  is  known  as  the 
double  contact  treatment.  In  perhaps  the  majority  of  cases,  however, 
owing  to  certain  features  of  construction  involved,  it  has  been  found 
advisable  to  make  use  of  but  a single  contact,  operating  the  beds  at 
approximately  one-half  the  rate  possible  with  double  contact  beds. 

In  the  contact  bed  the  action  is  chiefly  an  oxidizing  one,  in  which 
bacterial  agencies  are  mainly  instrumental.  While  the  sewage  stands  in 
contact  with  the  material  the  organic  matter  present  is  resolved  into 
simpler  compounds,  which  are  the  more  readily  acted  upon,  and  eventu- 
ally, mineralized,  by  the  activity  of  bacterial  agencies  during  the  periods 
of  rest. 

That  an  idea  may  be  had  regarding  the  purification  effected  in  con- 
tact beds  operating  under  favorable  conditions,  the  following  table,  com- 
piled from  date  given  in  a lecture  on  “Sewage  Purification  in  England,’^ 
delivered  in  1903,  by  Mr.  J.  D.  Watson,  engineer  to  the  Birmingham,  Rea 
and  Tame  Drainage  Board,  is  presented. 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


33 


Table  No,  VI. 


Efficiency  of  Contact  Beds  in  England. 


^ — > 
fli  tfl 

Ih  ^ 

^ S:? 

'T3 

(U 

CO  

bo  V 

efl  Ih  • 

^ U en 

Percentage  Purification 

Process  and 

Location  of  Plant. 

Time  duri 
which  beds 
at  work.  ("! 

Depth  of  ] 

(Feet.' 

Amount  of  S 

treated  per 

Daily. 

(U.  S.  Gall< 

By 

Oxygen 

Absorbed. 

By 

Albuminoid 

Ammonia 

Single  Contact. 

Croydon  

2 

3.75 

762,750 

64 

61 

Manchester  

4.5 

3.33 

550,800 

600,000 

75 

70 

Birmingham  

1 

4.50 

80 

79 

Double  Contact. 

Blackburn  

2 

5.50 

720,000 

75-80 

97 

Burnley  

5 

3.00 

231,600 

87 

85 

Carlisle  

2 

4.00 

1,086,840 

71 

61 

Leeds  

2 

5-6 

600,000 

95 

90 

Sheffield  

3 

5.00 

1,200,000 

87-90 

92 

Sheffield 

3 

3.33 

780,000 

87-90 

92 

Sprinkling  Filters.  The  sprinkling  filter  is  only  beginning  to  come 
into  use  in  this  country,  there  being  at  this  time  but  a few  small  plants 
of  this  type  in  operation,  the  largest  installation  being  that  at  Madi- 
son, Wis.,  which  has  a capacity  of  about  1,000,000  gallons  per  day. 
In  England,  however,  there  are  a number  of  comparatively  large  plants 
of  this  type  in  successful  operation. 

In  the  operation  of  the  sprinkling  filter,  the  sewage  is  distributed 
over  the  surface  of  the  material  in  fine  drops,  or  as  a spray,  and  allowed 
to  percolate  downward  through  the  bed.  At  Madison  the  sewage  is 
applied  through  lines  of  3-inch  perforated  vitrified  pipe,  laid  about  2 feet 
apart.  By  these  methods  of  applying  the  sewage  to  the  beds,  the  inter- 
stices between  the  particles  of  filtering  material  are  never  completely 
filled,  the  sewage  constantly  percolating  through  the  beds  in  the  presence 
of  air. 

In  their  action  upon  sewage  sprinkling  filters  have  been  found  to 
give  very  satisfactory  results.  The  sewage  in  its  passage  through  the 
bed  takes  up  oxygen  in  its  descent,  in  fact  the  proper  working  of  this 
type  of  filter  depends  upon  the  constant  presence  of  air  within  it.  Under 
such  conditions  aerobic  bacterial  activity  is  maintained  to  its  fullest 
extent.  It  has  been  found  advantageous  to  employ  some  preparatory 
treatment  of  the  raw  sewage,  prior  to  its  application  to  sprinkling  filters, 
the  reason  for  which  has  mainly  to  do  with  the  removal  of  suspended 
matters,  which  would  be  likely  to  clog  the  distributing  system. 

Following  is  a table  of  results,  compiled  from  the  beforementioned 
lecture  by  Mr.  J.  D.  Watson  of  the  Birmingham,  Rea  and  Tame  Drain- 
age Board,  which  gives  a fair  idea  of  the  results  obtained  from  this  type 
of  coarse-grain  bed  in  the  purification  of  sewage  in  England. 


34 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


Table  No.  VII. 

Efficiency  of  Sprinkling  Filters  in  England, 


Location. 

1 

Number  of  Years 
Beds  were  at  work. 

Depth  of  Bed. 

(Feet) 

Rate  of  Treatment 

per  Acre  Daily. 

(U.  S.  Gallons) 

Percentage  Purification. 

By 

Oxygen 

Absorbed. 

By 

Albuminoid 

Ammonia. 

Leeds  

3.5 

9 

1 1,200,000 

95 

90 

Accrington  

3.0 

8-9 

2,323,000 

90 

91 

Birmingham  

0.5 

5 

1 1,200,000 

86 

88 

Hyde  

3.0 

9 

1 2,513,000 

86 

90 

York 

1.0 

6.5 

1 2,555,500 

84 

90 

Rochdale 

2.5 

9 

1 2,323,000 

1 

84 

84 

THE  DISPOSAL  OF  SLUDGE. 

The  disposal  of  sludge  produced  in  sewage  purification  works  con- 
tinues to  be  a somewhat  unsettled  problem.  Cities  located  near  the  sea 
ship  it  thence,  and  London  in  this  way  satisfactorily  disposes  of  some 
8,000  tons  of  sewage  sludge  daily.  In  places  not  so  conveniently  located 
the  sludge  is  sometimes  pressed  into  cakes  and  buried.  Elsewhere  it  is 
treated  on  beds  specially  prepared  for  the  purpose,  where  it  is  dried,  and 
either  sold  or  given  away  as  fertilizer.  There  are  instances  where  it  is 
pressed  into  cakes  and  incinerated,  as  at  Leyton,  England,  where  during 
the  year  ending  March  31,  1899,  9,425  tons  of  pressed  sludge  cake  were 
disposed  of  in  this  manner.  This  method  of  sludge  disposal  is  used  also 
at  Huddersfield,  England,  and  several  other  places. 

SUMMARY. 

A large  part  of  the  failures,  or  indifferently  successful  sewage  puri- 
fication works  now  in  operation  in  the  world,  are  either  a result  of  the 
adoption  of  types  of  construction  unsuited  to  the  local  requirements,  or 
of  a lack  of  intelligent  supervision.  In  deciding  upon  a system  for  the 
treatment  of  a sewage  in  the  absence  of  preliminary  study,  only  designs 
may  be  properly  adopted  which  are  thoroughly  capable  of  comprehensive 
analysis,  and  which  have  been  proved  successful  in  the  treatment  of 
sewage  under  like  conditions. 

Without  a careful  study  of  local  conditions,  the  conclusion  so  often 
drawn  that  because  one  particular  method  of  treatment  has  proved  suc- 
cessful in  one  place,  and  under  one  set  of  conditions,  it  is  more  or  less 
universally  applicable,  is  obviously  pure  hypothetical  reasoning.  Take 
for  example  the  wave  of  popularity  in  the  case  of  the  chemical  precipita- 
tion method  of  sewage  treatment  which  swept  over  England  a number 
of  years  ago.  It  is  only  until  quite  recently  that  a number  of  English 
cities  have  come  to  the  realization  that  more  economic,  as  well  as  effici- 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


35 


ent  results,  may  be  obtained  from  other  methods  of  treatment.  Mr.  M. 
N.  Baker,  who  completed  a tour  of  inspection  of  the  sewage  works  of 
Great  Britain  last  June,  states  that  a number  of  cities  are  actually  rival- 
ling each  other  in  their  haste  to  abandon  the  chemical  precipitation  treat- 
ment, for  other  processes  which  they  have  found  upon  investigation  to 
be  better  suited  to  local  conditions. 

This,  of  course,  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a statement  that  the  chemical 
precipitation  treatment  is  being  universally  abandoned  throughout  Eng- 
land, for  on  the  contrary  a number  of  the  larger  cities  are  still  using  this 
method,  and  show  no  present  signs  of  changing.  Thus  Glasgow  is  at 
the  present  time  increasing  the  capacity  of  its  chemical  precipitation 
works,  and  these  additions  when  completed,  will  enable  the  works  to 
dispose  by  this  method  of  about  140  million  gallons  of  sewage  daily. 

There  appears  to  be  no  room  for  doubt  but  that  the  treatment  of 
sewage  on  intermittent  sand  filters  will,  in  the  vast  majority  of  instances, 
yield  the  highest  degree  of  purification  of  all  the  known  methods  of 
sewage  treatment.  In  England  the  natural  soil  is  not  uniformly  favor- 
able to  this  form  of  treatment,  and  except  in  the  northern  and  eastern 
sections,  the  same  is  true  in  this  country.  It  has  become  necessary, 
therefore,  to  pay  particular  attention  to  the  perfection  of  numerous  forms 
of  preparatory  treatment,  whereby  higher  rates  are  made  possible  in  the 
case  of  intermittent  sand  filtration,  and  other  subsidiary  processes,  there- 
by reducing  the  cost  of  the  plant  by  reducing  the  acreage  required.  It 
has  also  become  necessary  to  study  more  carefully  the  applicability  of 
certain  of  the  more  recently  devised  methods  of  sewage  treatment,  where- 
in coarse-grain  material,  such  as  is  locally  available,  can  be  made  use  of. 

As  to  the  supervision  of  sewage  purification  works,  it  is  perfectly 
obvious  that  no  matter  how  well  designed,  or  how  well  a plant  may  be 
fitted  to  meet  local  conditions,  without  conscientious  operation  it  cannot 
be  expected  to  do  good  work.  It  is  poor  economy  to  spend  large  sums 
of  money  upon  the  construction  of  a sewage  disposal  works,  and  prac- 
tically nothing  upon  its  supervision  and  attendance.  No  sewage  purifi- 
cation works  will  run  itself,  even  in  the  face  of  the  somewhat  extrava- 
gant claims  of  inventors  of  certain  automatic  devices.  Such  works  must 
not  only  be  inherently  capable  of  meeting  the  constantly  changing  condi- 
tions, but  must  be  made  to  do  so  by  competent  operators. 

It  would  seem  that  general  supervision  over  such  matters  as  these 
could  well  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  State  Boards  of  Health,  but  to 
do  this  legislative  action  would  be  necessary  in  order  that  there  might  be 
secured  the  necessary  authority  and  funds  to  carry  on  the  work  of  mak- 
ing frequent  inspections  of  sewage  purification  works.  Were  all  such 
works  operated  under  the  general  supervision,  and  with  the  advice  of 
such  bodies  as  these,  provided  they  were  equipped  with  men  competent 
to  do  such  work,  their  efficiency  could  not  but  be  improved,  and  the  gen- 
eral sanitary  considerations  surrounding  the  problem  of  sewage  purifica- 
tion could  not  fail  to  materially  profit  thereby. 

THE  COLUMBUS  SEWAGE  TESTING  STATION. 

From  tLe  $1,200,000  appropriation  authorized  by  the  people  of  Co- 
lumbus a little  over  a year  ago,  for  the  extension  and  improvement  of 


36 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


the  sewerage  system,  and  the  construction  of  a sewage  purification  works, 
the  sum  df  $46,000  was  set  apart  in  the  spring  of  last  year  for  the  con- 
struction and  maintenance  of  a testing  station,  where  certain  of  the  var- 
ious processes  of  sewage  purification  in  successful  operation  in  other 
places  might  be  given  a test  under  local  conditions  extending  over  a 
period  of  one  year.  This  station  has  been  in  operation  since  August  of 
last  year,  and  will  continue  until  the  four  seasons  of  the  year  have  been 
covered. 

As  to  the  wisdom  of  these  investigations,  preliminary  to  the  con- 
struction of  one  of  the  largest  sewage  purification  works  in  America, 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  Looking  at  the  matter  from  a broad  standpoint 
it  is  merely  a business  proposition  wherein  about  4 per  cent,  of  the 
capital  investment  is  to  be  expended  in  order  to  learn  which  one,  among 
the  numerous  methods  of  purification,  will  be  at  once  economical  from 
a standpoint  of  construction,  and  efficient  and  economical  from  a stand- 
point of  operation. 

One  good  reason  among  many  why  such  preliminary  study  is  well- 
advised,  relates  to  the  fact  that  the  sewage  of  each  community  possesses 
certain  characteristics  more  or  less  peculiar  to  itself.  Some  sewages  are 
composed  almost  entirely  of  domestic  wastes,  while  others  contain  in 
addition  large  volumes  of  industrial  wastes.  Some  sewages  are  very 
strong,  while  others  are  very  weak,  owing  to  the  leaching  of  ground 
waters  into  the  sewers,  or  to  the  extravagant  use  of  water  on  the  part 
of  the  citizens  of  the  community  in  question.  It  is  very  rare  indeed  that 
the  sewages  of  two  cities  are  found  to  be  the  same  in  composition.  All 
of  these  things,  some  more  than  others,  influence  the  character  of  the 
treatment  which  will  cope  most  successfully  with  the  problem  of  purify- 
ing the  sewage  of  a given  city.  There  are  at  this  time  over  a dozen 
different  methods  in  use  for  the  purification  of  the  sewage  of  cities  and 
towns  in  this  country,  each  one  presumably  being  particularly  fitted  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  local  conditions. 

The  work  carried  on  at  the  Sewage  Testing  Station  at  Columbus 
is  not  so  essentially  experimental  as  some  people  might  think.  The 
processes  under  test  are  in  a large  measure  duplicates  of  sewage  works 
in  successful  operation  on  a large  scale  in  this  country  and  abroad.  By 
testing  them  all  under  as  nearly  parallel  conditions  as  possible,  it  is 
expected  that  it  will  be  possible  to  select  one  process  which  is  clearly 
better  able  than  the  rest  to  meet  the  problem  of  purifying  the  local 
sewage. 

The  sewage  used  for  the  purposes  of  the  tests  is  obtained  from  the 
main  intercepting  sewer,  which  runs  under  one  corner  of  the  property 
on  which  the  Testing  Station  is  located.  It  is  estimated  that  this  sewer 
carries  three-fourths  of  the  total  dry  weather  flow  of  the  city,  and  it  is 
believed  that  the  sewage  pumped  at  the  Testing  Station  fairly  repre- 
sents in  character  that  which  the  main  disposal  works  will  handle. 

The  tests  are  conducted  on  a sufficiently  large  scale  to  render  the 
results  obtained  of  substantial  value.  The  quantity  of  sewage  treated 
daily  amounts  to  about  350,000  gallons,  or  roughly  equal  to  the  volume 
of  sewage  discharged  by  a community  of  4,000  persons.  A list  of  the 
various  devices  undergoing  the  test  is  given  below: 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


37 


Table  No.  VIH. 

Derices  Under  Test  in  the  Sewage  Station. 


Devices. 

Number 

of  Units. 

Capacity  of  Tanks,  or  area 
of  Filtering  Surface.  (Per  unit) 

Primary  Processes. 

Grit  Chambers  

2 

17,000  gallons. 

Settling  Tanks  

2 

17,000 

Septic  Tanks  

3 

17,000 

Strainers  (Coke)  

2 

(1=43.5)  (1=130  sq.  ft.) 

Intermediate  and  Finishing  Processes. 

Primary  Contact  Beds.  (Broken  Stone.) 

2 

130  square  feet. 

Primary  Contact  Beds.  (Crushed  Coke.) 

2 

43.5  “ 

Secondary  Contact  Beds.  (Crushed  Coke.) 

2 

43.5  “ 

Sprinkling  Filters.  (Broken  Stone.) 

5 

(3=43.5)  (1=80)  (1=130 
sq.  ft.) 

Intermediate  Settling  Tank '. 

1 

700  gallons. 

Intermittent  Sand  Filters  

21 

43.5  square  feet. 

A brief  sketch  of  the  principal  processes  which  are  being  studied  at 
the  Sewage  Testing  Station  is  as  follows: 

Outline  of  the  Principal  Processes  of  Sewage  Purification  Under 
Test  at  Columbus. 

1.  Raw  sewage, — which  is  first  screened  and  passed  through  a grit 
chamber  — applied  at  different  rates,  and  under  varying  conditions : 

(a)  To  coke  strainers,  the  effluents  of  which  are  applied  at  different 
rates  to 

(i)  Contact  beds.  (2)  Intermittent  sand  filters. 

(b)  To  contact  beds,  the  effluents  of  which  are  applied  at  different 
rates  to 

(i)  Secondary  contact  beds.  (2)  Intermittent  sand 
filters. 

(c)  To  sprinkling  filters,  the  effluents  of  which 

(i)  Are  or  are  not  settled  for  varying  periods  of  time, 
and  are  then  applied  at  different  rates  to 
(2)  Intermittent  sand  filters. 

(d)  To  intermittent  sand  filters. 

2.  Raw  sewage  as  in  (i),  settled  for  varying  periods  of  time  and 
then  applied  at  different  rates  and  under  varying  conditions  to 

(a)  Sprinkling  filters,  (b)  Intermittent  sand  filters. 

3.  Raw  sewage  as  in  (i),  treated  in  septic  tanks  in  which  varying 
periods  of  flow  are  employed,  and  then  applied  at  different  rates  and 
under  varying  conditions  to 

(a)  Sprinkling  filters,  (b)  Intermittent  sand  filters. 

This  outline,  which  can  only  be  very  incompletely  given  here,  may 
serve  to  indicate  in  a measure,  a few  of  the  studies  which  are  deemed 
essential  in  arriving  at  a solution  of  the  local  problem.  An  immense 
amount  of  labor  is  involved  in  the  tests,  necessitating  long  hours  of 
service  on  the  part  of  each  member  of  the  Testing  Station  staff,  which 


38 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


are  most  cheerfully  given.  The  station  is  operated  day  and  night,  seven 
days  in  the  week,  and  is  never  shut  down  except  in  case  of  accident. 

Connected  to  the  station  is  a well  equipped  laboratory,  where  the 
numerous  and  systematic  analyses  of  the  sewages  and  effluents  are  made. 
An  idea  of  the  amount  of  analytical  work  which  is  being  done  may  be 
had  from  the  statement  that  i,8oo  complete  chemical  and  2,500  bacterial 
analyses  have  been  made  to  date,  covering  a period  of  about  five  months. 
In  this  statement,  no  account  is  taken  of  a large  amount  of  analytical  work 
which  has  been  done  along  special  lines.  ^ 

The  work  is  being  conducted  under  the  general  supervision  of  Mr. 
Julian  Griggs,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Public  Service,  with  the 
speaker  in  direct  charge  of  the  station.  Messers.  Hering  and  Fuller  are 
the  Consulting  Engineers.  Mr.  A.  E.  Kimberly  is  Chemist.  Mr.  W.  R. 
Copeland  is  Bacteriologist,  and  Mr.  G.  P.  Shute  is  Assistant  Engineer. 
There  are  in  addition,  two  trained  assistants  in  each  of  the  chemical, 
bacteriological  and  engineering  departments,  two  inspectors,  a stenogra- 
pher and  a janitor,  making  a total  of  14  men  in  the  staff. 

Vice  President  Chapman : This  paper  is  now  before  the  association 
for  discussion.  I suppose  the  discussion  will  take  the  range  of  question- 
ing more  than  anything  else.  If  any  gentlemen  wish  to  talk  on  the  mat- 
ter we  will  now  hear  them,  and  I am  sure  Mr.  Johnson  will  sum  up  the 
questions  and  answer  them  if  possible. 

Dr.  Probst:  I rise  to  make  a motion. 

We  have  with  us  two  very  distinguished  visitors  whd  have  come  a 
long  ways  from  home  to  attend  this  meeting,  gentlemen  who  are  partic- 
ularly interested  in  the  subject  of  sewage  disposal.  Dr.  Hodgetts,  secretary 
of  the  Provincial  Board  of  Health  of  Ontario,  and  Dr.  Amyot,  who  is 
their  offlcial  bacteriologist. 

I wish  to  move  that  the  courtesies  of  the  floor  be  extended  to  these 
gentlemen  during  the  continuation  of  these  meetings. 

Motion  seconded  and  unanimously  carried. 

Vice  President  Chapman:  We  would  like  to  hear  from  these  gen- 
tlemen on  any  subject. 

Dr.  Probst:  I am  just  informed  that  we  also  have  with  us  Mr. 
Winslow,  of  Boston,  who  is  Professor  Sedgewick’s  assistant,  and  I move 
that  he  be  included  in  the  previous  motion. 

Motion  seconded  and  unanimously  carried. 

Vice  President  Chapman : This  gentleman  is  included,  and  we  would 
like  to  hear  from  him  on  this  subject  or  any  other. 

Mr.  Winslow,  of  Boston:  I am  very  glad  indeed  to  be  able  to 
extend  a word  of  congratulation  to  you  here  on  the  work  that  is  being 
done  in  this  matter.  We  used  to  think  in  Massachusetts  that  we  knew 
something  about  sewage  disposal.  As  you  all  know,  the  first  work  in 
this  country,  and  perhaps  the  first  real  scientific  work  in  the  world,  was 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


39 


done  down  there.  But  that  time  has  gone  by  and  we  have  to  come  out 
to  the  Mississippi  and  Ohio  valleys  now  to  learn  about  sewage  disposal, 
and  that  is  what  my  mission  in  the  west  is  now.  I think  it  is  a thing 
on  which  the  citizens  of  Columbus  ought  to  be  very  heartily  congratu- 
lated, having  been  the  first  city  in  the  United  States  to  approach  this 
matter  in  a rational,  scientific  and  far-seeing  way,  and  we  have  all  heard, 
all  over  the  country,  of  how  splendidly  this  work  has  been  conducted, 
and  is  being  conducted,  and  I know  that  everybody  in  the  east  who 
knows  anything  about  sanitary  matters  envies  me  the  opportunity  of 
seeing  the  work  practically  going  on. 

Dr.  Hodgett : Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen : I see  that  pretty 
much  the  same  questions  that  we  have  at  home  you  are  having  before 
this  meeting  for  discussion.  The  great  amount  of  money  this  city  has 
spent  and  is  going  to  spend  in  investigating  this  important  subject  — one 
which,  as  this  country  increases  in  population,  and  I am  speaking  not 
only  for  the  United  States,  but  also  for  Canada,  comes  home  to  every 
state  and  provincial  board  of  health  — requires  more  earnest  study  than 
ever  it  has  obtained  in  the  past,  and  one  which  I think  must  not  devolve 
so  much  upon  the  municipality  as  upon  the  states  and  provinces.  I know 
that  the  provincial  board  of  health  of  Ontario  feels  that  the  matter  is 
so  important  that  it  is  one  that  should  not  be  at  the  expense  of  one  par- 
ticular city  to  study  the  question,  but  that  the  provincial  board  of  health, 
which  represents  the  government  of  the  province,  should  out  of  the  rev- 
enues of  the  province  provide  the  proper  number  of  officers  and  the 
proper  system  for  the  examination  of  the  sewage  of  the  different  towns 
and  cities. 

I know  in  Ontario  we  are  meeting  with  the  difficulty  that  our  grow- 
ing towns,  manufacturing  towns,  are  polluting  the  streams ; and  as  a 
consequence  the  dairying  interests,  which  are  growing  very  rapidly,  pro- 
pose, since  the  towns  are  growing  in  population,  that  they  are  suffering 
from  the  polluted  streams,  and  already  our  courts  have  decided  that  it 
is  illegal  for  any  municipality  or  any  individual  to  pollute  a running 
stream  or  a lake.  The  contention  of  the  judges  on  appeal  was  that  the 
water  was  pure,  and  that  no  individual  or  municipality  had  a right  to 
pollute  that  stream ; that  they  must  provide  for  the  proper  treatment  and 
disposal  of  their  sewage,  and  I think  that  is  only  sound  common  sense. 

Then  another  direction  in  which  we  are  protecting  the  individual 
is  in  favoring  the  treatment  of  our  domestic  sewage  on  the  farms  and  of 
the  residences  in  our  scattered  villages  and  towns,  where  they  at  present 
have  no  system  of  sewage  disposal.  I mean  by  this  the  septic  tank  and 
the  land  disposition  of  the  sewage. 


40 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


Last  summer  Dr.  Amyot  and  myself  made  a tour  through  our  lake 
districts,  and  we  were  very  much  pleased  to  find  that  the  work  instituted 
some  six  years  ago  by  my  predecessor  in  office,  Dr.  Bryce,  who  perhaps 
is  known  to  a good  many  of  you,  has  been  carried  on  pretty  successfully ; 
and  that  a large  number  of  the  hotels  in  our  summer  resorts  dispose  of 
the  sewage  without  polluting  the  waters  of  the  lake,  and  that  the  systems 
there  have  been  in  operation  six  or  seven  years  without  having  cost  the 
hotel  proprietors  a cent  for  repairs,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

There  is  one  point  in  the  paper  which  particularly  struck  me,  and 
that  is  the  importance  of  municipalities  providing  proper  men  to  super- 
vise these  systems. 

We  have  had  systems  in  Ontario  in  the  past  where,  under  the  pro- 
vincial board  of  health,  systems  have  been  installed,  and  they  have  been 
left  to  their  own  sweet  will,  with  the  idea  that  they  would  simply  work 
along  perfectly  satisfactory,  and  as  a consequence  the  systems  that  have 
been  established  have  fallen  into  disrepute ; they  have  become  a nuisance, 
and  where  they  have  had  a disposal  of  some  kind  they  have  come  back 
to  the  provincial  board,  saying:  ^‘Here  you  have  given  us  a wrong 
system.” 

The  reader  of  the  paper  impresses  the  fact  that  we  want  intelligent 
supervision  and  constant  supervision,  not  only  by  the  local  authorities, 
but  by  the  state  authorities,  if  you  wish  them  to  be  a success.  I thank 
you,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  R.  Winthrop  Pratt:  I would  like  to  say  a word  emphasizing 
what  Mr.  Johnson  said  in  regard  to  the  fertilizing  value  of  sewage.  A 
good  many  people  have  the  idea  that  sewage  is  very  valuable,  and  that 
it  contains  many  valuable  substances  for  fertilizers,  and  that  it  is  a waste 
not  to  get  these  substances  out.  This  is  not  so. 

In  the  arid  regions  of  the  west  it  has  been  found  that  it  is  profitable 
to  run  the  sewage  on  the  excessively  dry  land,  for  the  reason  that  land 
will  take  up  the  liquid  as  well  as  the  solid  portions  — absorb  all  that 
goes  on  to  it. 

In  the  east,  on  the  filtration  beds,  sewage  crops  have  been  grown 
with  success.  However,  it  has  been  found  that  after  a few  years  the 
filtering  material  suffers  by  decreasing  in  size,  and  a nuisance  is  created 
by  the  ponding  of  the  sewage.  Much  care  is  therefore  required. 

Then  there  recently  has  been  proposed  a scheme  for  separating  the 
solid  from  the  liquid  matter  of  the  sewage  and  changing  it  into  fertilizer 
by  a reduction  process.  When  we  consider  that  it  takes  over  ten  thou- 
sand people  to  make  two  tons  of  sludge  each  day,  and  that  only  a small 
per  cent,  of  these  two  tons  contains  material  which  has  value  for  fer- 
tilizer, we  can  see  that  only  in  the  very  largest  cities  would  it  be  profitable 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


41 


to  separate  the  solid  matter  from  the  liquid  matter  in  sewage,  even  if 
a practicable  method  for  so  doing  could  be  devised. 

Furthermore,  after  the  solid  matter  has  been  separated  for  that  pur- 
pose the  liquid  matter  would  still  be  so  impure  that  we  should  have  to 
have  further  purification  for  it. 

Vice  President  Chapman:  Mr.  Johnson,  do  you  wish  to  make  any 
further  remarks? 

Mr.  Johnson:  No,  I thank  you. 

Dr.  Probst : I think  really  we  owe  a debt  of  thanks  to  Mr.  Johnson. 
He  is  not  a member  of  our  association,  but  he  has  kindly  consented  to 
give  his  time  and  come  here  and  present  this  valuable  paper,  and  also 
he  made  it  possible  for  us  to  visit  the  experiment  station  this  afternoon. 

I would,  therefore,  move  that  a vote  of  thanks  be  extended  to  Mr. 
Johnson. 

Motion  seconded  and  unanimously  carried. 

Vice  President  Chapman : We  have  twenty  minutes  before  we  need 
to  adjourn  to  the  street  car,  and  I have  one  question  here.  Are  there 
any  othCT  questions  in  the  gentlemen’s  pockets?  If  there  are  hand  them 
up  to  me\nd  I will  try  to  see  they  are  read  now. 

I have^hree  questions  on  one  paper;  with  your  permission  I will 
read  them,  t^at  some  of  you  may  answer  them. 

Question  :%i  Would  it  be  admissible  to  quarantine  patients  suffering 
from  smallpox  m.  one  room  of  house,  fumigating  the  place  and  allow  the 
others  to  attend  tc>. their  duties? 

That  is  a pertinent  question;  can  any  one  answer  it? 

Dr.  Friedrich:  Vj  have  just  had  experience  in  that  matter,  and 
decidedly  it  is  not  adii^ssible.  I think  that  is  the  best  way  of  spreading 
smallpox,  for  if  you  define  one  in  one  room  of  a house  and  let  the 
others  go  as  they  pleas^dt  is  simply  impossible  to  keep  them  separate 
unless  there  is  a man  at  tl%  door,  and  then  it  is  hard  to  control  them.  I 
think  the  only  way  is  to  j1|st  take  the  patient  out.  Remove  him  to  a 
hospital ; keep  him  there,  and  ’^nder  no  circumstances  do  I think  it  would 
be  advisable  to  have  a room  q%rantined,  and  the  rest  of  the  house  not 
under  quarantine.  % 

Vice  President  Chapman:  any  one  take  another  view  of  that? 

Dr.  Brand : I am  not  at  all  surp^^sed  that  this  question  was  brought 
forward.  In  a little  discussion  with  yJk  coming  down  on  the  train  yes- 
terday I anticipated  the  wrong  applicatioifi^f  this  observation  quarantine 
in  just  such  a manner  as  this. 

While  personally  I am  an  advocate  of  tte  method  of  quarantining 
smallpox,  I am  only  an  advocate  of  it  in  so  fa^that  the  health  officer  of 
the  community  shall  be  a medical  officer  who  ik  trained  in  that  work ; 


42 


OHIO  SANITARY  BULLETIN. 


that  he  shall  have  competent,  trained  medical  inspectors,  to  keep  his 
observation  over  these  houses  that  are  quarantined  in  that  way;  and 
unless  the  communities  are  so  provided  with  physicians  who  are  thor- 
oughly competent  to  carry  on  a quarantine  in  that  method,  it  is  not 
advisable  to  handle  smallpox  in  that  way,  because  unless  a man  is  qual- 
ified medically  to  deal  with  such  a disease  he  can  not  handle  smallpox 
or  prevent  the  spread  of  the  disease  in  that  manner. 

The  great  fault  is  that  very  many  of  our  health  officers,  particularly 
in  the  townships,  are  men  who  have  absolutely  no  medical  qualifications 
whatever;  they  have  no  knowledge  of  pathology,  or  in  fact  of  the  symp- 
toms of  the  disease.  They  endanger  the  lives  of  the  communities  by  any 
manner  of  handling  smallpox  except  the  correct  manner. 

Vice  President  Chapman : Then  you  would  not  advocate  the  quar- 
antining in  a room  — that  is  the  question  ? 

Dr.  Brand:  No,  sir;  not  by  any  means. 

Dr.  Anderson,  Lakewood : In  regard  to  these  questions.  They  say 
not  to  quarantine  in  one  room.  Dr.  Friedrich  speaks  of  taking  to  the  pest 
house.  We  have  no  pest  house. 

Dr.  Friedrich:  Take  a schoolhouse;  hire  a schoolhouse. 

Dr.  Andersen : And  I handed  the  question  in  for  that  reason ; to 
find  out  whether  it  would  be  permissible  for  the  State  Board  of  Health 
to  allow  any  condition  of  that  kind. 

Vice  President  Chapman : It  is  a practical  difficulty.  I have  had 
considerable  experience  in  this  thing,  and  have  had  considerable  trouble 
in  getting  a pest  house.  I sympathize  with  the  asker  of  the  question  as 
to  getting  a hospital. 

I don’t  myself  think  it  is  advisable  to  have  the  case  of  smallpox  in 
one  house  with  anybody  else. 

Dr.  A.  L.  Jones,  of  Lima:  I don’t  think  every  community  can  have 
a pest  house,  and  I think  it  devolves  upon  the  community  to  isolate  small- 
pox. The  pest  house  is  a luxury  for  a good  many  places,  and  especially 
the  townships  where  it  is  to-day  out  of  the  question. 

In  speaking  of  the  quarantining  that  is  being  done  in  the  country, 
why,  around  Lima  the  trustees  are  kind  enough  to  call  in  the  physician 
or  physicians  that  are  eligible  to  take  care  of  smallpox,  to  protect  these 
cases.  If  the  character  of  the  people  is  such  that  they  require  guards, 
why,  they  are  given  guards ; if  not  they  are  permitted  to  occupy  their 
home  and  their  wants  are  supplied  by  the  attending  physician.  If  they 
have  stock  one  of  the  boys  or  the  father  attends  to  it. 

While,  of  course,  there  may  be  many  objections  to  this,  at  the  same 
time  it  is  out  of  the  question,  so  far  as  expense  goes,  for  that  township, 
perhaps,  to  protect  the  case  in  any  other  manner  or  form. 


